I know 8 trans people well and many more as acquaintances. The 8 people I know well range from being an old childhood friend, to coworkers, to students, to neighbors.
I'm mostly aware that they are trans at all due to the increase in anti-trans laws and blatant transphobia in the US. Were it not for that? I might not know or even care. I worry about them.
In each case the fact that they are trans is one of the less interesting things I know about them.
I sometimes want to just explain to the bigots, this could all be very normal if you'd stop huffing bigoted media and get to know someone who was trans. It's just like ... a hormone imbalance that can be treated. It's like being mad at people for having red hair. If only you knew how boring this could be, how normal. How easy to forget that they are trans.
And I could just forget, if it weren't for the bigotry and the threats to their safety.
In decades of knowing trans people and being in places that are more accepting of trans and LGBTQ people I've never once had someone say "how dare you misgender me" though if someone had I don't know if that would matter, it's just nothing like what people expect and fear.
No one is pole dancing. I do not live in a gay pride parade.
I'm a Christian, I go to church now and then. I'm inwardly kind of prudish and I don't even like being around people swearing much.
With an online conversation it's hard to know if someone who disagrees with you is being sincere or not.
"LGBTQ people and their allies want it to be illegal to express yourself"
There are always limits to expression. If I decide I don't want to call you by your name, but I feel that "Sealion" is a better name for you, I could get in trouble at work or at school for doing that after you object... because it's rude.
@[email protected] It says on the page you linked: >Refusing to address a trans person by their preferred name and correct gender pronoun: > A manager repeatedly addresses a trans woman by her previous name or uses "he/him" pronouns, even though she has clearly communicated her preferred name and pronouns, undermining her gender identity in meetings and emails. >Repeated and deliberate mis-gendering of a trans person or people: > A co-worker continuously refers to a nonbinary employee using the wrong pronouns despite being corrected multiple times, doing so in conversations and written communication as a form of disrespect. This is what I take issue with. People should be free to express their opinion on whether a trans person is a man or a woman. Forcing them to act as if someone is a sex which they are clearly not is tyranny of the same kind as Winston Smith being forced to accept that 2+2=5. @[email protected] @[email protected]
But you are not just asking questions. You came into this thread making an assertion. You choose to put forward an anti-trans opinion in a thread that clearly was designed to advocate for acceptance. And you were treated more kindly than you deserve for this rude behavior. You didn’t come here for debate. You came to posture and to safely assert your bigotry. You also seem to confuse freedom of speech with harassment. The laws you refer to do not limit free speech - they limit targeted verbal harassment. Bullies have always used speech as a tool for harassment. Laws that recognize that do not limit individuals from expressing their opinions freely.
To elaborate. Let’s imagine you were employed. At work you misgender à coworker. They point it out to you. You freely assert that you don’t believe that trans women are women. The person freely asserts that you are being bigoted. No harassment has occurred. No law comes into force to limit any of this speech. However, from that point on, the person you misgendered stops using your name and preferred pronouns. Whenever you speak, they say “don’t listen to Bigot, she is an asshole.” They greet you in the morning with “Good morning Mrs. Bigot. Did you and your nazi friends find anyone to harass last night? Oh, sorry. I forgot Mrs. Bigot doesn’t have friends.” It is constantly like this. At this point, harassment is occurring. You might be able to use those laws you mentioned to stop the harassment. The bully can’t use a claim that “I believe that bigots need to be called bigots” as a defense for the harassment. Free speech is about expressing opinions. Harassment is not an opinion. It is an act.
The text of that law clearly distinguishes between harassment (similar to what I described) and speech "without ill intent." What you are apparently failing to recognize is that your description is "repeatedly using accurate pronouns without ill intent." The law recognizes that once you have been informed that your opinion about what constitutes an "accurate pronoun" is disrespectful to the person - your continued use of that pronoun is a *deliberate* act of disrespect. You are deliberately choosing to use a term that the person has informed you causes emotional harm. Your claim of "without ill intent," at that point, is disingenuous (at best). You are choosing to do harm. That is an act, not expression. No different than the coworker in my example referring to their coworker as "Mrs. Bigot" repeatedly after being informed it is not appreciated.
And to elaborate some more. Let's assume you are talking about "accidentally" using the wrong pronoun with your trans coworker on occasion - an act for which you apologize when it occurs -acknowledging the harm it causes. Something you try not to do. This is not harassment according to the law if you can show that you are making efforts to be respectful. The law targets harassment. Not speech.
And given that you have admitted that harassment is wrong and should be targeted by law, confusing the harassment targeted by the laws that you cite with "suppression of free speech" from this point forward would constitute another deliberate act. You acknowledge the distinction between opinion and harassment. So does the law. Asserting that the law doesn't, is disingenuous. You see that, right?
Objectively incorrect. Pronouns aren’t used to assert an opinion in the way you are claiming. They are used as a form of reference. Just like names. We learn very young that some forms of reference are used to bully (“don’t call people names” is an early social lesson). Name calling as an adult (I.e., slander) is one of the most widely accepted exceptions to “free speech” as well. When you deliberately use a name that has been identified as harmful (like misgendering with a pronoun) you are not expressing an opinion. You are name calling. A form of harassment. Your earlier acknowledgement that “calling a woman à man to be mean” is harassment indicates that you get this distinction - that you recognize that name calling is a way to bully. Misgendering is name calling. It is bullying. It is not a way to express your opinion. The law you cite correctly makes this distinction. Your assertion that started this conversation about suppression of free speech is factually incorrect.
@icastico Misgendering can be used as a way to bully. It can also simply be a way of expressing your opinion while referring to someone.
Pronouns are not pure reference. They also contain an opinion on whether the referent is male or female based on whether the pronoun is 'he' or 'she'. That opinion IMO is free speech.
Also, regular nouns can be gendered as well as pronouns. In some languages other than English, verbs and adjectives as well.
myrmepropagandist
Light
icastico